This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Gohu v. Spouses Gohu,[10] we ruled that, far from being tainted with bias and prejudice, an order declaring a party to have waived the right to present evidence for performing dilatory actions upholds the court's duty to ensure that trial proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed on the part of one party.[11] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough.[44] There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.[45] Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself.[46] "Although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge. The only exception to the rule is when the error is so gross and patent as to produce an ineluctable inference of bad faith or malice."[47] | |||||